I'll take the roasting for this

I'm as stoked as you for this game, and I'm this close to preordering it myself. One thing I've always appreciated in the battlefield games is how it rewards you for playing as a squad, and when you have randos that actually stick together, you become a killing machine. It's glorious.

But that's never stopped my squadmates from scattering to the four winds as soon as the boots hit the ground. And obviously, you can still do that in BF5. But the overt emphasis on team mechanics this time around will, I think, be a total game changer. And that's what I want: I want team focused gameplay, I want cooperation, I want to work with other people actively because that's why I play Battlefield.

Let the haters weed themselves out.

Hmh the most realistic first person shooter? Ever played escape from tarkov or Arma 3 ? Bf is just repeating the same things over and over same like Cod I don't like both of them it's like playing 2 3 weeks and then it's ok enough of that and be honest bf4 was great bf H was like wow 20 h playtime and dead bf1 is ok absolutely no fun for me but it's just my opinion you have a own and it's good

Making a game bad for a trailer is just for people that don't have better things to do let them be internet hero's they still wanne buy it

I one small player in the big blue sea of Battlefield players (since 1942) couldn't care less about women in game or other ethnicities. What pissed me off is the wackiness and confusion that comes along with the game.

I have a genuine hard time figuring out who is allied and who is axis on most of the footage that is released. The fact that guns don't seem faction exclusive and that some vehicles aren't as well also kind of kills the whole side choices. Perhaps most players will seek to customize their soldier in a faction recognizable way (although that ninja looking guy in Jackfrags footage had more to do with a Vietcong than german soldier).

Making everything available to everyone and turning both sides into a mess of custom looks is to say the least confusing. All I want is to be able to recognize who is friend or foe. My historical knowledge was supposed to help me but now since we have people rocking trench coats, pyjamas or star wars helmets i'm off balance.

I have no problems with them taking some freedom to make it more fun but when they blur the lines between sides that's when I got triggered.

Don't worry I will be waiting to see more footage to clear out my doubts so don't embrace the martyrdom just yet. Its just words on a screen.

Now come at me in your disco suit wielding gold plated MG-42s.

This was one of the hardest sentences to completely read. Holy run on.

not to mention insurgency is also doing a pretty good spin for it.

They are not making one woman, they are saying that females are a big part of the options that they are creating for the game, and then they have gone out of their way to say that anybody who disagrees with it are sexist, just recently the "Chief creative officer Patrick Soderlund" of the game has gone out and said that that if it bothers you dont buy the game, and that they are appealing to a diverse crowd of gamers which these horrible complainers doesnt realize.

You know what is gonna please the fans? if they publically stated that this is an alternative timeline of WW2, which will keep away the people who really wants a ww2 game since EA already doesnt give a dang, and then have some legitimacy to their claims, however right now they are promising and "authentic and realistic" WW2 game and then call sexist when people say that what they have shown is anything but realistic.

I strongly prefer to play female characters myself since gaming is experience the story of a person in the setting, but trying to claim that a female on the frontline with a prosthetic limb is authentic with the excuse "but its plausable" (not unless you were SEVERELY in need of infantry) is moronic.

Hey, ZoulsGaming, just a quick heads-up:
publically is actually spelled publicly. You can remember it by ends with –cly.
Have a nice day!

^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment.

It seemed like all your allies had the little blue or green symbol over their head. Unless you mainly play hardcore mode, you could just look for that symbol. No symbol then shoot.

Were you on Reddit during gamergate/were you apart of that at all?

followed it? yeah, on reddit? no. Are you one of the people who are gonna say it was all aboutsexism and nothing to do with gaming journalism being horrible

No I am one of those people who are going to say that the main argument made against the journalists and feminists by members of gamergate was that games are art, and because games were art, the developers(as artists) had the sole discretion of what should or shouldn't be in their games. If the feminists and journalists wanted representation in their games, then they needed to make their own games not force game devs to change their game to suit the wishes of the feminists/journalists. If you dont like it dont buy it.

So what I wanted to ask you is why does that argument not apply here? Here we have devs who care about representation and so they decided to include it in BF5. How is everyone who both participated in gamergate, and now are trying to tell dice how they should and should not make a ww2 game not total hypocrites?

actually one of the main arguments in gamergate was the corruption of the journalist industry where they would give good reviews in favour of sex, but ofc lets ignore that.

Should they be allowed to make whatever game they want? sure. Should they get shit for preaching about authencity and realism with design choices made to appease a demographic who isnt going to help them and doesnt at all fit with what they are preaching? absolutely.

I have said this before, i prefer to play female characters myself, but it just doesnt hold up in a WW2 setting which was primarily fought by white blokes. For the same reason that i dont want white men in the games set in ancient china or japan.

They also said that one of them was to show "true moments of heroims from the war" which gets kinda shit on when you have half of the people of d-day landing be women. CAUSE IT DIDNT HAPPEN.

What is really bothersome is that they have doubled down on it, the creative director has said that he "is on the right side of history" and "anybody who doesnt like my decision dont buy the game" which is definitely not something you should be saying to an already displeased audience. The 413k downvotes on their trailer should give an indication https://gyazo.com/7952943fb2b7455d97f2ece3c248e600

People dont have an issue with them making choices, people have an issue with them claiming to have a historical setting and then throwing it out the window to pander, with the excuse that anybody against it is a bigot. Does that make enough sense?

They have stated that its designed to fit more to fun than historical accuracy so don’t know what your point is with that.

Every single Cucked SJW Libtard after watching this abortion of a trailer: "OMG! This game looks sooooo good! It's so progressive! It's about time a video game got history right. Everyone knows female solder's did just as much fighting as the men during WW2. Wait. MORE fighting than the men. I bet the final boss in the game is Donald Trump. Because Trump is LITERALLY HITLER! REEEEEEEEEEE!!! My wife's boyfriend says that if I save up my good boy points, and don't interrupt them with my bitch-crying, he'll buy me this game when it comes out! Thank you EA DICE!"